On 3 March 2016 at 11:31, Philippe Mouawad <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thursday, March 3, 2016, sebb <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 3 March 2016 at 06:37, Philippe Mouawad <[email protected] >> <javascript:;>> wrote: >> > On Thursday, March 3, 2016, sebb <[email protected] <javascript:;>> >> wrote: >> > >> >> On 2 March 2016 at 22:06, Philippe Mouawad <[email protected] >> <javascript:;> >> >> <javascript:;>> wrote: >> >> > Hello, >> >> > For information , we had a vote on our twitter account: >> >> > - https://twitter.com/apachejmeter/status/702590631571496961 >> >> > >> >> > Results are the following: >> >> > Participation : 100 Votes >> >> > - 9% NO >> >> >> >> What reasons were given for saying no? >> > >> > >> > People don't give an explanation for their vote on twitter. >> > But you can read by clicking on the link above the replies to the voting >> > tweet to see 2 or 3 reasons for no and the same for yes. >> >> I only see 6 votes there; the proportions are 50-50. >> All the No votes are about keeping JMeter light-weight. >> >> There does not seem to be a way to see the other votes. > > > you're mixing votes and replies to tweets.
I see. > Vote give 91% > Besides in this thread, majority of comments are for a bundling. > > But if you want we can start a technical vote on this although I think it's > a lot of energy spent. I was just curious if there was any other reason apart from added size. >> >> >> >> >> > - 91% YES >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > This has no particular value except to give a kind of feeling about >> it. >> >> > >> >> > From this discussion it appears we have a move towards including it. >> >> > >> >> > Unless there is a NOGO I will start bundling 2.4.6 groovy-all in >> jmeter >> >> > tomorrow evening. >> >> > >> >> > Regards >> >> > Philippe >> >> > >> >> > On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 3:53 AM, Vladimir Sitnikov < >> >> > [email protected] <javascript:;> <javascript:;>> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> TL;DR: +1 for bundling proper groovy.jar with JMeter. >> >> >> >> >> >> Alternative approach would be some kind of "online store to download >> >> >> JMeter plugins". I am not sure if that can be done in a reasonable >> >> >> time frame though. >> >> >> >> >> >> In my opinion, there are number of advantages for bundling Groovy: >> >> >> 1) I can easily get a "online groovy console", so I can easily check >> >> >> if -3.abs() returns 3 or -3. That is exactly JMeter users have to do. >> >> >> JMeter (as IDE) does not provide ability to execute small parts of >> >> >> code, thus users have to use their minds (or Google or whatever) to >> >> >> craft code that works. I claim using Groovy online console helps a >> >> >> lot. With BeanShell you never know if your code will work until you >> >> >> run it. >> >> >> >> >> >> groovyconsole.appspot.com just blows BeanShell out of the water. >> >> >> >> >> >> 2) "Groovy is in active development, thus everybody would have to >> >> >> constantly update groovy.jar anyway" is not justified. >> >> >> Even though there will be new groovy.jar releases, it is unlikely >> >> >> users will use cutting-edge features of Groovy language in JMeter >> >> >> scenarios. >> >> >> >> >> >> I think the main usage would be just regular boilerplate code, so >> >> >> non-experts would never be able to write Groovy code that requires >> the >> >> >> latest groovy.jar to execute. >> >> >> >> >> >> 3) Even though I prefer not to use Groovy, I see no better >> replacement >> >> >> for glue code in JMeter's samplers. In fact, it could even make sense >> >> >> to add a menu entry like "create groovy samlper". That way users >> could >> >> >> access it without secret knowledge of what JSR223 means. >> >> >> >> >> >> 4) Groovy's Java interop is much better designed from language point >> >> >> of view than the one of JavaScript. I mean it is just much easier to >> >> >> call java libraries since that was considered by Groovy language >> >> >> designers. This somewhat rules out JavaScript. BeanShell is too >> >> >> verbose and it does not seem to be the right tool as a glue language. >> >> >> >> >> >> As a Java programmer, I'm much more fluent in "Groovy+groovyconsole" >> >> >> than in "BeanShell+no_way_to_validate_snippet". >> >> >> I'm fluent in JavaScript, yet it does not help me to answer "how to >> >> >> read/write a file". Rhino/Nashorn have java interop, yet it is not in >> >> >> my active vocabulary, thus I would prefer groovy. >> >> >> >> >> >> 5) It is a bit hard to pick the proper groovy jar. >> >> >> >> >> >> 6) At the end of the day, "valid java code is valid Groovy code" >> >> >> >> >> >> 7) Having Groovy in JMeter would add nice "backward compatibility" >> >> >> feature. Suppose JMeter 3.0 includes Groovy. Then load scripts would >> >> >> work in exactly the same way for all the users of JMeter 3.0. If >> >> >> everybody downloads his/her own version of Groovy, that would easily >> >> >> result in "JMeter script broken for unknown reason" or even "wrong >> >> >> results due to newer/incompatible groovy.jar version". >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> sebb> The only advantage I can see is that JMeter users don't have to >> >> >> sebb> download Groovy in order to use it. >> >> >> >> >> >> That is huge advantage. >> >> >> Current http://groovy-lang.org/download.html is not designed for >> >> >> downloading a single jar file. >> >> >> "apache-groovy-binary...zip" is 35MiB zip file with lots of jars >> >> >> inside. Technically speaking, 52 of them start with "groovy-" >> >> >> I do not want to learn/read which groovy jar I need. I just want to >> >> >> make JMeter work. >> >> >> >> >> >> Milamber>2/ Why Beanshell is including in JMeter and not Groovy? >> >> >> >> >> >> I think it might be a good time to deprecate BeanShell. Not in a >> sense >> >> >> "remove it in the subsequent release", but in order to clean up >> menus, >> >> >> etc, etc. One never has excessive screen space, so removing BeanShell >> >> >> menus seems wise from my point of view. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> sebb> This adds aboiut 5% to the total jar size. >> >> >> >> >> >> That is OK from my point of view. >> >> >> >> >> >> Current apache-jmeter-2.13.zip includes: >> >> >> 1) Lots of javadocs (docs/api). 46MiB when unzipped. That is more >> than >> >> >> 50% of the JMeter (82MiB is the net volume of unzipped JMeter 2.13). >> >> >> If removing docs/api, the zip file takes 5MiB less. I'm not sure >> >> >> javadocs need be the part of regular JMeter binary zip. >> >> >> >> >> >> 2) Current docs/images/screenshots takes 12MiB. It can likely be fit >> >> >> under 5MiB (~save 10MiB) if crunched through a png optimizer. >> >> >> >> >> >> Vladimir >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > -- >> >> > Cordialement. >> >> > Philippe Mouawad. >> >> >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Cordialement. >> > Philippe Mouawad. >> > > > -- > Cordialement. > Philippe Mouawad.
